Contracting Ethics, on Improper Business Practices, on Agreements - Essay Example

Contracting Ethics, on improper business practices, on agreements Contracting Ethics, on improper business practices, on agreements The Government Accountability Office also known as GAO is a tool of the United States Congress used as an auditing, evaluating and investigating body. It is part of the legislative body of the United States government. Established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the GAO is responsible for investigating any seat, be it in the government. This is to ensure that the receipts, disbursement and application of all public funds are reported to the President and the Congress. The aim is to have a greater deal of supportive and valuable economy along with efficient expense on public expenditure. It is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States: a professional but non-partisan position allocated in the government. Elected by the President with the approval of the Senate, this Comptroller is chosen and must serve for a period of fifteen years. The Comptroller General cannot be removed by the President and this job can only be done by the Congress. The Congress too must use impeachment or joint resolution to remove the Comptroller. This allows the GAO to have a continuous reign of leadership and independence, unhampered by the throes of power. The current aim of the GAO serves two purposes. It aims not only to assist the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities but also to better the performance and accountability of the federal court. By applying these aims, the GAO betters not only the proper use of state expenditure which assists the government but also keeps the advantage this better funding will have to the American citizen in mind. The GAO is similar to many other audit organizations that have been established by governments all over the world. However, its uniqueness lies in the fact that it serves not only as a tool for championing financial audits but also keeps a check on performance audits, thus making it of a far more useful service to the United States government. Government Accountability Office is responsible for serving as the United State's electronic data provider. This allows every report published by the Office to be printed online on a website known as www.gao.gov. These reports can range from a number of different offices all over the United States government. These include education, retirement issues, housing, health care, financial management, international affairs, human capital, environment, homeland security and administration of justice. Thus, the GAO is responsible for addressing a diverse group in the United States government. It is created not only for the work of financial groups responsible for the government funds but also keeps a check on the security, environment and justice available to every individual of the United States. By placing a website online, the GAO allows its reports to be open to public scrutiny which is very useful when judging the benefits and losses of every fiscal year. However, there are certain reports that are not printed by the GAO onto their website because of limited officials' use it has. The availability of these sensitive reports are seen as a threat to national and homeland security and thus their availability to the public is prohibited. The reports made by the GAO are generally summoned by the Congress themselves. This is done to reflect concerns that arise from the political set-up. A periodic issuing of the report allows the government to keep a check on the funding of the United States Agencies and their operations. By setting standards of auditing for government organizations, programs and activities, the GAO creates Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards which are followed by audits and auditors. In 2008 the GAO did a study in the Department of Defense where defense contractor employees worked alongside the federal employees. Because of the billions of dollars spent on funding the DOD, it was necessary for the GAO to see if the facility was substantial in the tasks it employed. As the duty done by the DOD is supremely sensitive the integrity of the contractor based employees had to be established. The contractors provide various jobs inside the Department: such as building maintenance or information technology services. They are now moving into providing for the creation of weapon systems which allow them access to sensitive and restricted information. The information was collected from organizations like the United States Air Force, Army and Navy which reveal the immense importance of the jobs being conducted by the contractors. The Federal Acquisition Regulation sees the contract participation as an "inherently governmental function category" The GAO saw that not only was the work and criticalness of the contractors' jobs checked but also how these contractors could prevent their own personal conflicts from arising while working in the Department of Defense. Also checked by the GAO was the need by government and defense contractor officials to check if further safeguards were necessary to keep the honor of the DOD intact. This activity was conducted by interviewing ethics officials and senior officials to determine the applicability of the contractor and federal employees hired by the GAO. This was coupled with a review of the laws and policies of the DOD. 21 DOD offices and 23 of their contractors were interviewed for this report. The results showed a high degree of contractor employees working with the officials in the DOD offices. This was proven by the 15 offices surveyed which contained a 88% workforce of contractors over officials. These contractors performed vital duties like creating contract agreements and advising on fees that would be set for fellow contractors. Thus, their phenomenal numbers performed key tasks needed by the department. A surveillance of the laws and policies applying to both contractors and federal employees showed a huge difference in the expectations and limitations placed on both designations. Only one personal conflict of interest could be applied to both groups: that being the one of prohibition, restriction or requirement. Other aspects of the personal conflict of interest like bribing, revealing of sensitive financial interest, accepting gifts or misusing the position they were placed in were drastically different for both groups. If federal employees broke the regulations, their misconduct would be immediately apprehended through serious consequences like fines, prosecution, dismissal or even incarceration. These consequences could not be applied to contract workers as they were under no given law. Thus public corruption applied to both groups and financial or personal conflicts of interest were limited only to the federal employees. While all of the above stated limitations were compulsory for federal employees, the contractors had no such compulsion to follow these laws. The risks these contractors can pose are reduced by the voluntary acceptance of these individuals to accept safeguards like placing a contract clause that prevents contractors' employees from affecting a personal financial gain. However, a further survey showed a ratio of 3:23 defense contractors as possessing any safeguard that would prevent employees from misusing their position. Thus, while a voluntary acceptance of reducing the levels of personal conflict were available to contractor employees, the percentage that could escape without following the laws were much higher. Also included was the contractor's inability to buy stocks in competitor firms to reduce the levels of personal interest that would arise in the contractor's dealings. This opinion is also withheld by government officials who feel little is being done to curb the harm that can come from the conflicting personal interests of the contractors in the department. There were two sides of the argument. Contractors themselves felt it a waste of money to employ safeguards while senior officials saw it as a vital part of protecting the information held by the Department of Defense. The on-going conflict prevents any decision from being reached. Statistics provided by the GAO like the rates of individuals who are part of the navy and army as contract employees are phenomenal. 77% of the project management of the army consists of contract employees. This is coupled with 86% in the Navy's engineering force and 65% in the Air Force's surveillance command. Numbers like this show the great degree to which contract workers have infiltrated the system and taken over jobs that can be done by federal employees. The jobs done by these contract employees can be compared to the work of the federal employees themselves. The contractors are responsible for reaching critical decisions. They are responsible for deciding the performance and evaluation of past contractors and their hiring. Also, they assist in administrative decisions such as reaching travel budgets and discrepancies in payments. Program managers of the given organizations saw the contract employees as the technical part of the decision making process while the real power resided with them alone. In situations where the contract personnel are responsible for giving advice and assistance for highly sensitive information they are required to sign forms which ensure their integrity. Known as acquisition planning, the FAR defines it as a means of coordinating and merging the work of the agency's acquisition personnel that strategize and provide means of fulfilling the needs of the agency in an efficient and cost- effective style (American Bar Association). For instance, the Missile Defense Agency makes every contract employee sign an agreement which prevents them from revealing any government information and to refrain from doing any activity that will create a conflict on interest in what they do. If this is to occur they have to immediately tell their contractor. Thus, anyone who is employed in acquisition planning is expected to sign an agreement giving their full integrity to fulfill and protect the needs of the organization they are working for. The acquisition management needs to fulfill various tasks. This includes a cycle which involves development, award, managing and the close-out of a contract. The contractors should have limited access to these acquisition managing skills for a number of reasons. For starters they can never fully guarantee the privacy and reduced conflict of interest each of their employees can pose. By being unable to do this they put the finance and safety of sensitive projects at stake. Also, while this problem can be solved by signing an ethical form as stated above, this form also has space for the individual to be able to fulfill their own personal gains and then inform the contractor. This freedom can be dangerous. Thus, the acquisition process is something that has to be determined by each individual on their own accord and judgment rather than handed to a contract employee. The recommendations given by the GAO are to protect the safety and integrity of the Department of Defense. They aim not only at reducing the amount of conflict that can arise through personal or financial gain but also at protecting the sensitivity to critical areas in the administration's decision making process. The first and most effective should be the implementation of a code of ethics that should be followed by all contract employees. This is seen as vital for reducing the number of contract employees who can gain a personal advantage from working at the DOD. This code of ethics should stretch out to control many aspects which are worrying about contract employees. It includes contractors to choose personnel whose interests and conflicts will be apparent before they begin working on the contracts. This also includes limits on the gifts and misuse of position that will be available to the contract personnel once they join the DOD. The problem with this recommendation is the inability of the GAO to show how these measures can be implemented. There is no way to tell the difference between an employee who can be lying just to gain the job and one who will be honest in their attempt to attaint the job. The GAO also involves the contractors' company themselves into assuring good service. Each contractor company should be held responsible for their personnel and the individuals they employ. The company is expected to report to the contractor responsible for any violations they feel to be occurring. This can be personal or financial conflict, each of which has to be identified and told to the contractor or their representative immediately. Recognizing this conflict will also be easier if the company carries out tests which will check the motives of the employees. As the GAO states, these screenings can be regular or annual to remove any employees who can create conflicts in the DOD. The solution for this can be easily done through means like material checking like financial disclosure statement which will allow the contractor company to keep any eye on their workers. The implementation and involvement of the contractor company can be seen as vital in improving the situation creating conflict. This is because companies will lose their credibility if they are unable to provide apt and able employees to the DOD. For them to succeed as credible and trustworthy organizations, these contractor companies must take full responsibility of their employee's actions and create serious consequences if the employees are seen involved in any of the prohibited activities. The FAR suggests that the employees hired through contract companies have an ethics form that determines their freedom from personal conflicts of interest which can be harmful to the DOD. According to the ethics for contracting, government business should be conducted free from biases and with integrity that prevents workers from accepting gifts or money in exchange for a favor (Harney 1992). The problem with this idea of the FAR is its presence only in idea and not in any form of solution. It does not state how these measures should be applied and has created no policies that would ensure the ethics are followed. However, in 2007, FAR has asked companies to set and follow their code of ethics. This is useful when applied to the idea of the GAO which asks contract companies to play a greater role in the activities of their employees as stated above. FAR also suggests periodic review of the requirements and policies adopted by contract companies for government employment, audits which can be both external and internal, means of allowing employers to know the misconduct of contract personnel and consequences if the employee breaks the code of ethics. These ideas are also presented by the GAO in their recommendation of how contract personnel can be expected to play their role in the DOD with a greater deal of integrity and reduced conflict of interests. The GAO aims to protect and abet any crime or activity that can harm the entire country. By carrying out this check on the Department of Defense the GAO aimed to reduce the problems that would affect not only the financial state of the United States but also its security as a whole. In accepting the problem, conducting a research and giving recommendations the GAO moved as a body in its attempt to stand up for the very reasons it has been created: evaluating and investigating body. Though the GAO is a little limited in its research by checking only a given number of bodies, it can be said that its results apply to all organizations with contract employees. Thus, the GAO considered and worked on a problem that has serious consequences and succeeded in implying the need for ethical and contractual issues. Bibliography American Bar Association, Government Contract Law: The Deskbook for Procurement Professionals, Section of Public Contract Law American Bar A, pp 73 FAR , Federal Acquisition Regulation, Available: http://www.acquisition.gov/far/ [Accessed August 4 2009] GAO, US Government Accountability Office, Available: http://www.gao.gov/ [Accessed August 4 2009] Harney D (1992), Service Contracting: A local government guide, International City/County Management Association, pp 14 Read More